Sunday 6 October 2002

Bush: Saddam Could Inflict 'Horror' [AP World News] OK, so this is a link to another story covering the same material. But I'm posting it separately because it contains a very significant quote from the great Dubyoo: "for the sake of our freedom, for the sake of peace, if the United Nations won't make the decision, if Saddam Hussein continues to lie and deceive, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm this man before he harms America." Of course, the important phrase here is 'if the United Nations won't make the decision'. This is so like the language of a spoiled child that it makes one even more concerned that such a man is in the position of power which he is. 'We lay down the rules' is what he's saying. In other words, the United Nations is only relevant if it behaves as the US decrees. This one phrase effectively sweeps away the previous attempts to cloak US aggressiveness with UN authority. God help us all. 3:38:02 PM  Your view

Bush Tells Critics Hussein Could Strike at Any Time. President Bush today offered a new argument for acting quickly against Iraq, saying that Saddam Hussein "has a horrible history" of striking without warning. By David E. Sanger. [New York Times: International] Here we go again. Precisely as expected, when the arms-inspection excuse doesn't seem to be working out, it's time to change the rules and come up with a different one. Now, apparently, legitimate cause for launching an attack on Iraq is that its leader invaded Kuwait before and therefore must inevitably have his sights set on attacking the US! How can anyone possibly give serious attention to such crazy logic?       Other Dubyoo quotes from the article: [1] "We must not ignore reality. We must do everything we can to disarm this man before he hurts one single American." Is this by use of the 'weapons of mass destruction' which the UN weapons inspectors are supposed to be going in to seek and destroy? Would it not make more sense to let the inspectors do their work and thereby remove this 'threat'? [2] "We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression, and they will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met." It's all very fine not having a quarrel with the Iraqi people, but how exactly are innocent Iraqis to be spared the consequences of a US attack? The so-caled smart missiles aren't exactly renowned for their accuracy, are they? And what's all this about 'the world's demands'? The only demands I've heard anything of are the belly-thumping rhetoric of the US and its UK lapdog leader. Are these two countries now 'the world'?       It's bad enough that the UN weapons inspectors have agreed to wait until the Security Council patches together a new resolution until they go about their business (a sad move, indeed), but now to have the US President imply that the UN is irrelevant anyway because Saddam poses a direct threat to the US is pure poppycock -- dangerous poppycock, buy poppycock nonetheless. 3:23:14 PM  Your view

		© Copyright 2002 Jim MacCormaic . Last update: 09/11/2002; 03:29:42 am .